If Gretzky started playing in todays NHL

[livewell68]

But they are not gone! Sid was on pace for over 130 points. Do you think him as equal with the great one or Mario Lemieux? Hell no! Someday there might be a player that is there with Wayne and Mario but right now there is none in the NHL.
Sidney Crosby is as good as it gets at the moment.

A pace means nothing. Crosby still has time left on the season.

Last year Ovechkin played at a 1.67 PPG pace for more than 2/3 of the season but then finished with 1.51 PPG.

Crosby was on a hot streak. 130 Pts though is not 150 Pts, is it?

Why do Greztky and Lemieux have to beat Crosby by 60 Pts.

Beating someone by 20-30 Pts in the scoring race is still very impressive.

I know adjusted points don't tell the whole story but just look at Jagr's 1998-99 127 Pts season.

He won the Art Ross by 20 Pts. Adjusted those totals become 163 Pts.

The game has changed.

So if Gretzky or Lemieux beat Crosby by 30-40 Pts it still means that Corsby is nowhere near them.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

The Great One's hockey sense transcends eras. Today, he'd still be The Great One.

 

[SidGenoMario]

Crosby is no where close to Gretzky and Lemieux, everyone knows it, I don't see why you guys are so intent to bring it up in every other thread.

 

[livewell68]

Crosby is no where close to Gretzky and Lemieux, everyone knows it, I don't see why you guys are so intent to bring it up in every other thread.

We know he's not, I just have to mention him because the person that I replied to mentioned Crosby.

Gretzky at his best now would beat the 2nd nereast player in scoring by 20-40 Pts but the days of him winning the Art Ross by 60-70 Pts are long gone.

 

[tikkanen5rings*]

A pace means nothing. Crosby still has time left on the season.

Last year Ovechkin played at a 1.67 PPG pace for more than 2/3 of the season but then finished with 1.51 PPG.

Crosby was on a hot streak. 130 Pts though is not 150 Pts, is it?

Why do Greztky and Lemieux have to beat Crosby by 60 Pts.

Beating someone by 20-30 Pts in the scoring race is still very impressive.

I know adjusted points don't tell the whole story but just look at Jagr's 1998-99 127 Pts season.

He won the Art Ross by 20 Pts. Adjusted those totals become 163 Pts.

The game has changed.

So if Gretzky or Lemieux beat Crosby by 30-40 Pts it still means that Corsby is nowhere near them.

1#Adjusted points are ********.
2#We were talking about Wayne
3#Crosby wasn't in hot streak. He will continue to produce.
4#The game has chanced allright but for better or worse and how does it has to do with anything?
5#Ofcourse on pace means something don't be dumb.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Crosby isn't in the same area code as Gretzky...

 

[livewell68]

1#Adjusted points are ********.
2#We were talking about Wayne
3#Crosby wasn't in hot streak. He will continue to produce.
4#The game has chanced allright but for better or worse and how does it has to do with anything?
5#Ofcourse on pace means something don't be dumb.

How am I being dumb?

Adjusted points do mean something and pace means nothing in the scheme of a season.

Let's say it was April and the playoffs were starting and let's say Crosby had not played a single game after his concussion, then we could say "Crosby was playing at a 130 Pts pace so he would have won the Art Ross" but the fact is the season isn't over.

Crosby can come back and be back to his 1.35 PPG pace.

Let's say Crosby is to play 25 more games, with the 1.35 PPG pace over 25 games, that would be 34 Pts.

He would finish at 100 Pts which would mean 1.52 PPG.

Has Crosby ever played at 1.60 PPG before this year? No so this indicating right now in terms of his career numbers that it was a hot streak.

Btw we don't need to revert to using childish insults like calling someone dumb to have a discussion. We can be a bit more mature about it.

I know the nets have not grown in size but goalie equipment size and overall goalie talent has.

So let's say the nets got bigger and then someone like Stamkos scored 100 goals, would that mean his 100 goals were better than Gretzky's 92 goals? Of course not.

This is why adjusted points are used by some.

 

[JackSlater]

How is 80-100 assists Sedin/Thornton/Crosby territory?

In recent seasons they have had assist totals in that range.

Thornton got 90 twice and has not had 80 since. (the two seasons he got 90, the NHL was calling penalties much more frequently and strictly than they have been called ever since).

Both Sedin and Crosby hit 80 on peak seasons.

Yes, and I'm inclined to believe that peak Gretzky can better peak Henrik Sedin's assist total by 50% or so.

Gretzky would hit 100 on peak years but even those 100-120 assists seasons could not be possible, even from Greztky.

If he can attain 100 assists, how is the 100-120 range impossible? Anyway, I'm sure Gretzky's assist totals appeared to be impossible in the 80s as well, at least before he went out and attained them.

Not saying players are better now or more skilled but just the fact that the game is played vastly differently from the 1980's would mean that the certain "pure physical shortcomings" that Gretzky had could not made up for by the simple fact that he had the best vision, IQ in the history of the game or the fact that he could anticipate the play.

Henrik Sedin just lead the NHL in scoring. Patrick Kane is an elite scorer in the NHL. Gretzky's "pure physical shortcomings", which are generally overblown, would not hinder him greatly today.

Think about this; players now are brought up from the time they learn to skate until they grow up to play a strategical game.

Not all players are born equal, some players have better vision than others but players now make less mistakes than they used to and they lack creativity so Greztky would not be given as much offensive freedom as he did before.

Gretzky would adapt I'm sure. I also don't think that a player as dominating offensively as peak Gretzky would be relied upon to prevent the other team from scoring. Any decent coach would presumably allow Gretzky to be most effective, which would mean an offensive approach whenever he was on the ice.

Yes Gretzky was great but he also turned over the puck a lot. Players were allowed to be free on the ice, were allowed to take chances and make mistakes, now if a player turns over the puck too many times he could get benched.

I really doubt that Wayne Gretzky is going to be benched for turning the puck over. He was the greatest offensive force ever.

 

[livewell68]

In recent seasons they have had assist totals in that range.



Yes, and I'm inclined to believe that peak Gretzky can better peak Henrik Sedin's assist total by 50% or so.



If he can attain 100 assists, how is the 100-120 range impossible? Anyway, I'm sure Gretzky's assist totals appeared to be impossible in the 80s as well, at least before he went out and attained them.



Henrik Sedin just lead the NHL in scoring. Patrick Kane is an elite scorer in the NHL. Gretzky's "pure physical shortcomings", which are generally overblown, would not hinder him greatly today.



Gretzky would adapt I'm sure. I also don't think that a player as dominating offensively as peak Gretzky would be relied upon to prevent the other team from scoring. Any decent coach would presumably allow Gretzky to be most effective, which would mean an offensive approach whenever he was on the ice.



I really doubt that Wayne Gretzky is going to be benched for turning the puck over. He was the greatest offensive force ever.

Except all you have mentioned is hypothetical and based on the fact that Gretzky played in the 1980's and early 1990's.

I know Gretzky was getting old but why was a 34 year old Jagr more dominant than a 34 year old Gretzky?

Might it be that the game was changing and that maybe his "overblown" "physical shortcomings" were starting to show?

Also idf Gretzky had started his career not long ago and was playing in the post-lockout era, coaches would have not known that he once scored 200 Pts (because it would have never happened) so if he did give away the puck often he might have been at odds with the coach.


We are just using fantasies and what ifs.

We should appreciate Gretzky and Lemieux for what they did and be greatful for the memories they gave us but we cannot for a 100% certainty say that because they got 100 assists in the 1980's and got 170+ Pts in the 1980's that they would do it again.

For example the last time Gretzky surpassed 160 Pts was 1990-91. That season the GPG (goals per game was just under 7 goals at 6.91) big difference from now.

Gretzky wasn't exactly old in 1990-91 either as he was 30 years old, still very much in his prime.

He would still have 2 good years after that with 130 Pts and 121 Pts but why is it that when the game started to change, Gretzky became less dominant?

 

[tikkanen5rings*]

How am I being dumb?

Adjusted points do mean something and pace means nothing in the scheme of a season.

Let's say it was April and the playoffs were starting and let's say Crosby had not played a single game after his concussion, then we could say "Crosby was playing at a 130 Pts pace so he would have won the Art Ross" but the fact is the season isn't over.

Crosby can come back and be back to his 1.35 PPG pace.

Let's say Crosby is to play 25 more games, with the 1.35 PPG pace over 25 games, that would be 34 Pts.

He would finish at 100 Pts which would mean 1.52 PPG.

Has Crosby ever played at 1.60 PPG before this year? No so this indicating right now in terms of his career numbers that it was a hot streak.

Btw we don't need to revert to using childish insults like calling someone dumb to have a discussion. We can be a bit more mature about it.

I know the nets have not grown in size but goalie equipment size and overall goalie talent has.

So let's say the nets got bigger and then someone like Stamkos scored 100 goals, would that mean his 100 goals were better than Gretzky's 92 goals? Of course not.

This is why adjusted points are used by some.

Ummm? Ever heard of a peak? It can last for several years tou know.

btw. I will call people dumb if they are being dumb. It's not childish.

 

[edog37]

Gretzky would have trouble outscoring Crosby in this era for two reasons....

1) he's a pipsqueak. Yes, no clutching & grabbing now, but Gretzky was never a physical specimen either.
2) Also, he wouldn't have the 80s Oilers as a support cast due to the cap. Lemieux would destroy the rest of the league now. Hell, he was practically doing it when he came back after the first retirement & his prime was over. A Lemieux in his prime would just lay waste to everyone. And yes, his shootout percentage would be over 90%.....

 

[livewell68]

Ummm? Ever heard of a peak? It can last for several years tou know.

btw. I will call people dumb if they are being dumb. It's not childish.

Sure it is because I have not said anything dumb.

How do you know that Crosby's peak is 1.60 PPG?

If it was then his peak would be only 3rd to Lemieux and Gretzky.

Are you saying he's going to have the best peak by any player not named Lemieux or Gretzky?

Lindros had a better start to his career, had stretches through his career where he was playing at a 1.60 PPG pace, does that mean that was consistent?

So far history has shown that a "freak year" is not always reproduced unless you are Lemieux or Gretzky.

Crosby improving physically or getting older does not mean that he will improve statiscally. So until he can finish a season with a 120 Pts pace again then I will say that Crosby will most likely become a 110 Pts at best from here on in.

I give you Jagr:

Many times in his career he has gone stretches, sometimes longer than 41 games where he played at a PPG even higher than 1.60 PPG.

In 1999-00 the first 39 games he had 32 goals, 39 assists and 71 Pts for a 1.82 PPG or a pace of 149 Pts, he got injured and missed 19 games and when he came back his PPG dropped to 1.52.

In 2000-01 the second half, the last 45 games Jagr had 84 Pts. That's a 1.87 PPG. Did he keep that pace up the whole year? NO

Still Jagr played at a higher level (you can even call it hot streak if you want) for considerably similar or longer periods of time.

BTW those were not freak stretches for Jagr because he does have a career high 1.81 PPG in 1995-96 when he had 149 Pts.

Also Jagr had 6 seasons in which he had 1.50 PPG or higher. So far Crosby has only "finished" (finished being the key word) the season once with a 1.50 PPG or higher and it was 1.52 PPG.

Pace means nothing if you can't finish the season on that pace.

 

[seventieslord]

I think he could be a PP specialist who plays the half boards and behind the net. He could handle maybe 10 minutes a game, playing full PPs and some ES time against lesser competition. His smarts would definitely allow him to be one of the game's top PP scorers so he could probably snag about 10 G, 40 A on the PP in a season for a good team that made good use of his passing skills. I just can't see him handling more ice time than that, and he's physically frail. Keep in mind the guy's 50.

 

[livewell68]

BTW I will make a comparison between the NBA and the NHL.

Chamberlain was the best statiscal player of all time but he dominated an era where basketball had weak competition, he was 7'2 playing against the average player at 6'6.

He scored 100 Pts in a game, he averaged 50 pts for a season.

Now those numbers can never be reached again but how come Chamberlain isn't considered the best player of all time?

Bill Russell won 11 titles in the NBA but is not considered the best of all time either because of the weaker competition.

Jordan is considered the best of all time because he played in a much tougher era in basketball.

It is very similar in the NHL.

Gretzky had better numbers, scored more, won more awards, but do some claim that Orr or Lemieux were better?

The era you play in and they manner in which he go about being succesful or dominant counts.

 

[livewell68]

I just can't see him handling more ice time than that, and he's physically frail. Keep in mind the guy's 50.

Exactly lol

 

[JackSlater]

Except all you have mentioned is hypothetical and based on the fact that Gretzky played in the 1980's and early 1990's.

Everything in this thread is hypothetical. You are the poster who insists on speaking in absolutes in this thread... which becomes quite noticeable when you quote practically every post in the thread.

I know Gretzky was getting old but why was a 34 year old Jagr more dominant than a 34 year old Gretzky?

Probably due in part to Gretzky's injury in 91, the much larger number of games Gretzky had already played and the fact that Jagr had a career revival. Why was Gretzky better at 36 and 37 than Jagr?

Might it be that the game was changing and that maybe his "overblown" "physical shortcomings" were starting to show?

Might it be that Gretzky was fourth in scoring at 36 and third in scoring at 37, even though he played on weak teams and had suffered a back injury earlier in his career that had lowered his level of play for years?

Also idf Gretzky had started his career not long ago and was playing in the post-lockout era, coaches would have not known that he once scored 200 Pts (because it would have never happened) so if he did give away the puck often he might have been at odds with the coach.

Gretzky would very likely be far more hyped than Crosby recently was before he entered the NHL. He would have been given every opportunity to prove his worth offensively, and all evidence points to him quickly demonstrating his value.

Gretzky would have trouble outscoring Crosby in this era for two reasons....

1) he's a pipsqueak. Yes, no clutching & grabbing now, but Gretzky was never a physical specimen either.

Noted physical specimen Martin St. Louis and the Sedin brothers were not all that far behind Crosby before his injury.

2) Also, he wouldn't have the 80s Oilers as a support cast due to the cap. Lemieux would destroy the rest of the league now. Hell, he was practically doing it when he came back after the first retirement & his prime was over. A Lemieux in his prime would just lay waste to everyone. And yes, his shootout percentage would be over 90%.....

Take a look at some of those early Edmonton teams that Gretzky played on. He was winning scoring titles by record margins before the other Oilers had become great.

 

[livewell68]

Everything in this thread is hypothetical. You are the poster who insists on speaking in absolutes in this thread... which becomes quite noticeable when you quote practically every post in the thread.



Probably due in part to Gretzky's injury in 91, the much larger number of games Gretzky had already played and the fact that Jagr had a career revival. Why was Gretzky better at 36 and 37 than Jagr?



Might it be that Gretzky was fourth in scoring at 36 and third in scoring at 37, even though he played on weak teams and had suffered a back injury earlier in his career that had lowered his level of play for years?



Gretzky would very likely be far more hyped than Crosby recently was before he entered the NHL. He would have been given every opportunity to prove his worth offensively, and all evidence points to him quickly demonstrating his value.



Noted physical specimen Martin St. Louis and the Sedin brothers were not all that far behind Crosby before his injury.



Take a look at some of those early Edmonton teams that Gretzky played on. He was winning scoring titles by record margins before the other Oilers had become great.

You are entitled to your opinion and you go ahead thinking that Gretzky could score 160-200 Pts in this new NHL.

My brain tells me that with all the changes in the game, Gretzky could still win Art Ross trophies but scoring 160-200 would not have been done.

Speaking of the 36 and 37 year old Jagr.

Jagr did play the whole season in 2006-07 when he was 36 but he was coming off reconstructive shoulder surgery and struggled all year to get his shot back that saw him pot 54 goals the year before.

So if Jagr injured (that shoulder injury was believed to be career ending by some doctors at the time) still scored 96 Pts then it means that he could have scored 100+ Pts easily if healthy.

So Jagr played injured too, missed time because of injury too.

Heck even in 2001-02 when he was in Washington, Jagr missed 13 games because of a knee injury, that knee injury was a lot worse because it was the injury that made Jagr slow down in terms of skating speed. He was never ever able to regain that speed after the injury. Even when he scored 123 Pts in 2005-06.

 

[lextune]

I think he could be a PP specialist who plays the half boards and behind the net. He could handle maybe 10 minutes a game, playing full PPs and some ES time against lesser competition. His smarts would definitely allow him to be one of the game's top PP scorers so he could probably snag about 10 G, 40 A on the PP in a season for a good team that made good use of his passing skills. I just can't see him handling more ice time than that, and he's physically frail. Keep in mind the guy's 50.

Ha! Well done.

 

[Seanconn*]

Still think Lemieux would be the better of the two, if they both joined the league as 18 year olds today.


Mario Lemieux would have scored 120 points this season as a rookie I bet. He joined the league when there were a lot A LOT of 100+ point scorers... how many are around today?

Gretzky would be a 170-180 pt guy on his best seasons, maybe crack 190.

But Lemieux would be the only one with the chance to crack 200 in the NHL right now. He's just built for the game much better (sans health problems) Gretzky would definitely have been motivated to put on some muscle. He's still taller than crosby, if even by a hair!

who knows, Maybe Wayne could still crack 200 today, but I think Lemieux would be better able to crack 200, and especially do it again. He's the only other guy to come close... and 199 is just insane.

I also don't think Wayne would have a sure shot at most goals in one season, Mario scored 85, Brett Hull scored 86... If Mario was able to do 85 today, Wayne doing 92, just flat out seems improbable, and way too fluky.

 

[BSHH]

I think he could be a PP specialist who plays the half boards and behind the net. He could handle maybe 10 minutes a game, playing full PPs and some ES time against lesser competition. His smarts would definitely allow him to be one of the game's top PP scorers so he could probably snag about 10 G, 40 A on the PP in a season for a good team that made good use of his passing skills. I just can't see him handling more ice time than that, and he's physically frail. Keep in mind the guy's 50.

Wasn't the question hypothetical? But you are right, even the real Gretzky should be able to produce nowadays, perhaps similarly to Recchi's numbers.

A prime Gretzky should be able to have regular 140 point seasons and occasional 160 point seasons. Just look at a player like Datsyuk, who a) is brilliant, but not a generational talent, b) does not have an overly physical game, c) also focusses on defensive play and d) is neither the best playmaker nor the best goalscorer in the NHL, but can still achieve 90 point seasons. Gretzky would be much better offensively than him.

Gruß,
BSHH

 

[AStammer7*]

Gretzky Would Not Score 50 In Todays NHL!!!

Crosby is no where close to Gretzky and Lemieux, everyone knows it, I don't see why you guys are so intent to bring it up in every other thread.

Wayne Gretzky was a great player that's for sure, buts his stats were completely over blown by playing in the Western Conference against teams that played little to no defense. Having a second line as good as the first in Edmonchuk prevented teams from keying on Gretz...The NHL as a whole was a very old league and with that comes old legs...In todays NHL 'tenders wear enough equipment to have covered two in the 1980's and early '90's... If Gretzky was a rookie in todays NHL he'd have 15 goals no more no less...His skills would transcend but by his third or fourth season he would have been concussed...because some steroid puke would have decked him...On the anniversary of his 50 B-day happy B-day Wayne, your were good but not the best...

 

[tikkanen5rings*]

You are entitled to your opinion and you go ahead thinking that Gretzky could score 160-200 Pts in this new NHL.

My brain tells me that with all the changes in the game, Gretzky could still win Art Ross trophies but scoring 160-200 would not have been done.

Speaking of the 36 and 37 year old Jagr.

Jagr did play the whole season in 2006-07 when he was 36 but he was coming off reconstructive shoulder surgery and struggled all year to get his shot back that saw him pot 54 goals the year before.

So if Jagr injured (that shoulder injury was believed to be career ending by some doctors at the time) still scored 96 Pts then it means that he could have scored 100+ Pts easily if healthy.

So Jagr played injured too, missed time because of injury too.

Heck even in 2001-02 when he was in Washington, Jagr missed 13 games because of a knee injury, that knee injury was a lot worse because it was the injury that made Jagr slow down in terms of skating speed. He was never ever able to regain that speed after the injury. Even when he scored 123 Pts in 2005-06.

Dude... lay off the Jagr flood. I didn't even read this post beyond Jagr.
Jagr is one of the alltime greatest players. He is actually 2nd of euros in my list! But not top7 so lay off...

 

[Slapshooter]

i would expect something like 40-50g, 90-120a.

i don't think gretzky's wrist shot was strong enough to beat goalies regularly, despite his accuracy. he scored huge numbers of goals with his preferred slapshot, but there is much less time and space to use the slapshot, and goalies no longer allow unscreened slapshots every game.

position on the ice is more important than having a great shot, but gretzky also may have avoided contact more than any player i have ever seen, and there is much less open ice now.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Todays game is softer, but the positional defence and especially goalies are much better. Gretzky did not possess that kind of elite wrister which is needed to dominate the modern goalies. Prime Gretzky would have something like 40-50 goals + zillions of assists, depenging on support.

Mario Lemieux, on the other hand, would rip the Rocket trophy apart.

 

[Fredrik_71]

I think Gretzky would have earned as many personal trophies in todays hockey. Talent doesn't go away just because of different eras. Regarding SC I dont know. Its hard putting together a SC team with the salary cap and doing it consecutively is almost impossible.

But one think I'm certain of is that many of his records wouldn't be as impressive. The league is just to defensive oriented today.

/Cheers

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

S
But Lemieux would be the only one with the chance to crack 200 in the NHL right now. He's just built for the game much better (sans health problems) Gretzky would definitely have been motivated to put on some muscle. He's still taller than crosby, if even by a hair!
.

Lots of players were "better built" for the game than Gretzky when he played. Including Lemieux. He still dominated all of them (except Lemieux who was no better than Gretzky even when healthy).

I do think Lemieux would be the better goal scorer than Gretzky in today's game, but I think Gretzky would be the better point producer.